list_feature_requests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions return contents (MRR data, vote breakdown) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. There is also a slight inconsistency: description mentions 'full-text search' while the schema says 'filter by title'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 7 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and key output highlights (MRR, votes). It doesn't explicitly address when to choose this over search_feedback, but it provides enough context for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds context about MRR and vote breakdown but doesn't provide additional detail on parameter formatting or behavior beyond the schema. The 'q' parameter description is somewhat ambiguous against 'full-text search'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists feature requests from FeaturePulse, which is a specific verb and resource. It lists key capabilities (filtering, full-text search, sorting) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating the tool helps prioritize development by business impact, implying it should be used for sorting and reviewing feature requests. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.